Leica and Hasselblad have infamously introduced similar cameras before. These fashion cameras aren't bought by photographers, they are bought by rich people wanting to make a statement and impress others.

For photographers needing to be seen as so. A bad taste option ! At a price !

Really not such a bad idea for a fashion label! After all, this is an excuse to push their brand in very high end store windows. So they guarantee Leica a purchase of say 400 units minimum and they get this exclusive look and just have to out up $200,000 or so, (modest in a big fashion brand's marketing budget), and that must be well worth it to them. As long as the co-branding fashion company already has gravitas and does not bring down Leica, then it's a great idea. Likely as not, more than a few of these camera will go as Christmas gifts to the branding company executives and they buy them at a great discount!

In addition, they sell at the top end stores such as Harrod's of London and in the USA, Macy's and Saks 5th Avenue and many more! The annual sales is about 360 million Euros, so they can afford the expenditure. So the V.P. Of Sales at Least at Harrod's in London Christmas will be able to impress her minions at the grand Harrod's Christmas part this year!

..... And who knows, if you can get on the "list" for the next Oscars red carpet and official guest party, one of these might be in your goody bag on the way out!

So, Antonio, it really has nothing to do with photography, just branding and lifestyle!

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

I note that the blurb mentions the "red, white and blue" colors, but if one is going to draw the connection with the French flag, it would have been better to mention the "blue, white, and red" colors (bleu, blanc, et rouge, n'est-ce pas?).

I always associate luxury items with good taste. Here it is not the case.
If I would have - ever - received one of these cameras I would range it deep in the cupboard so no one would see it.

I would take it out to show to my boss.
I would be embarrassed to old such a thing in public.

Exactly, Antonio! If I owned a clean ordinary Leica body, I'd cover up the red dot! I do not like to advertise what I have. That's the advantage of the Ricoh GR, no one thinks it's significant.

But at a movie star's pool party, it would look tres chic with a
shoulder bag from Hermes! No one's really interested in anything,
just to be seen, noticed and perhaps contacted for the next show!

And to the profit motive, if you are willing to follow me further in this musing:

But profit is an efficient tool. What liberal democratic societies with bustling economies try to do is to encourage entrepreneurs to stay up late at night to devise schemes to generate jobs and profit and then tax the company in the morning. In a socialist system, only the diehard kind, public-spirited and bright engineers and sales folk will do the same. But in the socialist model, one generates a layer of technocrats who have built up loyal relationships and family favoritism and no one suffers loss of job because of failure to deliver product at a competitive price.

Theres' no doubt that capitalism easily becomes ruthless and evil, but, in the free market, with adequate transparency and a free press, we get to discover what solution, exploitation and greed they are abusing society with. Then we can correct the beasts. They never can be totally tamed as they will always try to beat the system to maximize profit.

Brilliant ideas are actually very common. Few are capable of acting on their genius and inventiveness. That's where capitalism and the engine of greed works so well. however, it's always a Faustian bargain and fraught with risk. Still, in a reward-driven society, new ideas will be tested and developed. Among scientists, it's not the hope of financial reward but more of the self satisfaction, pride and status of unravelling natures mysteries of practical challenges that dives us. If that could also work in producing the supplies, food and goods we need, we could shut down capitalism and profit motives as our Western civilization's model of functioning.

However, no one has found a way of getting ordinary citizens do their very best, long term, just for self esteem and status. It can work for one generation of enthusiastic part cadres, but then, once institutionalized, unless there are already abundant resources and sufficient trained manpower, the society will stagnate.

So we are stuck with a stinking system that degrades out planet!

Still, bring a team of entrepreneurs to any sunny accessible place with wonderful seafood and within ten years there will be a wonderful resort and local production of food, water skis, boats and more to make the area flourish.

Socialists generally don't have the flair to bring a place to life like this and become self-sustaining. however, without the plan being sound and sustainable no investors would support this and the project, however delightful would never get off the ground. A socialist government could readily divert it's limited cash to finance the scheme, but without going through the risky and arduous gauntlet of getting financed on the free market, any such diversion of funds would be a tragic mistake of monumental proportions.

So, when I see that overpriced Leica adorned by those obviously noticed
colors, I think, ,"Some executive's teenager is going to get a plastic
camouflage/rain cover for that fine camera and then have a lot of fun!

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

I note that the blurb mentions the "red, white and blue" colors, but if one is going to draw the connection with the French flag, it would have been better to mention the "blue, white, and red" colors (bleu, blanc, et rouge, n'est-ce pas?).

Of course 3 concurrent ( side by side ) ocuurances of one color will have a flag of only one color.

Without further qualification, such as non-repeating , distinct etc..the answer might not be strictly accurate.

p.s this is being added to clarify...permutations on its own is simple factorial maths. But one has to be succinct in defining what is to be done. Flags or cars are irrelevant.

In how many distinct ( unique ) ways can one arrange 3 different objects in a way that none of the objects repeat themselves in any one instance of occurrence . And secondly that all 3 objects are present in each occurance. These two conditions must apply to each occurance.

One should have a go at genetic coding!!

Or an easier example which I face. I have six medical consultants that I have to visit each year.
In how many ways can I visit at least 4 of them. ( I shall omit the # of visits/consultant /year for simplicity ). Let me know.

Leica and Hasselblad have infamously introduced similar cameras before. These fashion cameras aren't bought by photographers, they are bought by rich people wanting to make a statement and impress others.

I know a lot of people like this, Cem. They come to my classes, walk around tourist destination, spend a lot of time in camera stores and join online forums. They're not necessarily rich; just gullible

Perhaps you mean can a color be repeated. If there were two colors that were repeated, there would be a minimum of four stripes altogether, certainly possible, but not found in the class of flag designs we have been looking at.

************

"Permutation" in the strict sense has a unique meaning, and does require nor admit of further qualification.

That sense operates upon a set of objects with no duplication (for example, the three objects A, B, and C). The "permutations" of that set are all the sequences (orders) in which those three objects can be placed:

ABC
ACB
BAC
BCA
CAB
CBA

A related matter, not strictly "permutations", operates upon a set with repetition, as for example the set A,A,B.

That set can be ordered in these distinct ways:

AAB
ABA
BAA

Then there is another "less strict" meaning of "permutation"!

This operates on a set of n objects, all different, and considers all the possible ways we can draw m of those and then, having drawn each such subset, all the different ways it can be ordered, the numerical result being the totality of all that.

For example, if we consider all the "permutations of three things, taken two at a time" (which is how that form of the notion is often expressed), where the three objects are A, B, and C, the permutations are:

AB
BA
AC
CA
BC
CA

This is in effect the notion of combinations concatenated with the notion (in the strict sense) of permutations.

That is, these are the combinations of three things taken two at a time (and here the sequence in which I write them is not significant):

A,B
A,C
B,C

But for each of those, there are two permutations (in the strict sense); that it, two ways they can be sequenced.

So from A,B we get AB and BA; from A,C we get AC and CA; from B,C we get BC and CB (overall, the six listed earlier).

There are of course many variations on these themes which are of importance in various real "problems" (including in the area of statistics), and often given descriptions involving the word "permutation", but strictly, only the first I showed is properly called the matter of "permutation".

When they refer to permutations, statisticians use a specific terminology. They describe permutations as n distinct objects taken r at a time. in the case of flags, you would have to say
3 distinct objects taken 3 at a time. Then 6 is the correct answer.

But one has to explicitly say what is ' n ' and what is ' r '. Because ' r ' = something different than 3 would give a different answer.

Translation: n refers to the number of objects from which the permutation is formed; and r refers to the number of objects used to form the permutation.

Computing the number of permutations. The number of permutations of n objects taken r at a time is
nPr = n(n - 1)(n - 2) ... (n - r + 1) = n! / (n - r)!

I like to keep things simple. For people like myself. But at times, lengthy essays are used to hide, waffle, distort or confuse simple people.

Check the definition of permutations in the sentence at the top. Compare it with what and how ' permutations ' were defined and used the first time the word ' permutation ' was used.

One has to define precisely the issue. There is no place for waffle.

The above definition was taken with a Google search from stattrek.com

But if repitition is allowed..that becomes a different ball game. That is why I have stressed the two conditions be met in a previous post. That makes it complete. The word ' distinct '. Blue, white, blue e.g fails my second condition. Though it is distinct.

In the light of such brilliant mathematics, I was wondering how many possibilities there are for 2 items (let's call them x an y) can be arranged in a group of 3 in which no item is repeated.

The correct response will be used as the colour scheme for the cover of a book I'm writing called 'transgressions from the norm for colour schemes of Leica cameras and the relationship to the alphabet letter symbol used for that model.'
It will discuss at length the impact on image quality, economic stability in Germany, trends and models for future fashion and the ability for photographers to talk endlessly on less than nothing.
I'm inclined to think that the readership will be small; limited to those who stalk camera stores, looking for something that doesn't clash with white, need an upper case letter imbedded on the camera body to learn the alphabet and a wallet that matches a price tag that will impress the impressionable.

I note that "the number of permutations of n things" is legitimate terminology, is complete and explicit, and requires no further qualification. This is in fact the basic use, in mathematics today, of the term "permutations".

It is indeed numerically and logically equivalent to "the number of permutations of n things taken n at a time", a special case of another broader meaning of the term "permutation, which you seem to believe is the only legitimate meaning.

It is equivalent to, in your notation, "n things taken r at a time for r = n"

The formal name for such a situation (not often heard) is a "partial permutation", which avoids confusion with "permutation(s)", whose meaning I discussed at the outset.

I realize that when I was first taught about permutations and combinations (ca. 1952, I suspect), the term "permutations" was taught with the meaning you ascribe to it (what is today called, formally, "partial permutation"). That may well have been true for you (not to suggest that we are contemporaries).

The Wikipedia article on this overall topic says, condescendingly, that this meaning (of "permutations") is "sometimes used in elementary combinatorics texts".

No Doug. I do not believe mine is the only legitimate definition. I just do not believe that yours is either.

Being a teacher confers no special rights, unfortunately. And in mathematics..there is no such thing as
' 2 + 2 ' was different in 1952 or is different in 2015.

As to your answer to a 'teacher's' question as to the number of ways 2 objects can be arranged in a group of 3....being zero ( of course ' zero ' long predates either of us and has somehow managed to survive thus far )...I would say there is an ' x and y ' and a ' z '. The ' z ' being a joker.

Wikipedia..well not necessarily something I would necessarily recommend as a reliable reference for anything. But YMMV.

As to your answer to a 'teacher's' question as to the number of ways 2 objects can be arranged in a group of 3....being zero ( of course ' zero ' long predates either of us and has somehow managed to survive thus far )...I would say there is an ' x and y ' and a ' z '. The ' z ' being a joker.

We are all teachers. But I believe that question came from a joker.

In any case, it is said that, using the broader meaning of "permutation", with variables n and r, that is, "n things taken r at a time":

P(n,r) = 0 for r>n [The case for the recent question]

P(n,r) = n!/(n-r)! otherwise

We must take 0! to be 1, which makes this work in the case of a true permutation (where r = n).

This value, P(n,r) is formally described as the number of r-permutations of n.

Doug, the Panasonics and/or Panasonic rebranded Leicas are excellent machines. I would advise anyone to buy the equivalent Panasonic rather than the Leica. Except that the latest D-Lux Type 109 appears to be having more issues than the previous incarnations. I would opt for the Panasonic. The price difference this time is pretty sane and Leica does include a free copy of LR.

I have no experience with either of the machines that you have, so cannot comment performance wise.

In the case of the ones I have, I think of them them as "not-Leica-rebranded Panasonics"!

Quote:

I would advise anyone to buy the equivalent Panasonic rather than the Leica. Except that the latest D-Lux Type 109 appears to be having more issues than the previous incarnations. I would opt for the Panasonic. The price difference this time is pretty sane and Leica does include a free copy of LR.

Yes, and that is a considerable factor in comparing the "bottom line". I wasn't anxious to get into LR, so that factor didn't have much leverage here.

Quote:

I have no experience with either of the machines that you have, so cannot comment performance wise.

I have been very impressed on both machines with the design, build, operation, and user interface. Some reviewers have complained that they "feel like plastic". Carla, who in a prior life was a Chevrolet salesman, said, "Yeah, some people used to say that about the Corvette - mostly people who couldn't afford one."

As to photographic image quality, especially on the FZ1000 (which has a "one inch" sensor), I haven't so far done much work that will let me calibrate its capabilities. Certainly. for the work I have done so far (mostly destined for Carla's blog and such, downsized to a maximum dimension of 800 px before they leave the lab here), the results have been very satisfying.

I hope to have some more "demanding" work done with the machine to show here soon.

For photographers needing to be seen as so. A bad taste option ! At a price !

I would like to get back to the essence of this - promotion of brands and positioning the names in the luxury brand ecosphere. Companies such as Nespresso, Channel, Hermes spend 20-50 million US $ to have "Flagship" store on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills CA. Tourists, (from China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Europe, especially), with so much money to spend, flock to this hedonistic thriving commerce thoroughfare every day. So this is an example, like the decorated Leica, to help associate a brand with "luxury" and having reached an "elite" level of life. Thus the brand gets considered a sign of increased worth and status.

This helps make the brand work and the labor supply chain filters down with more employment and secure livelihoods all down the manufacturing and merchandising food chain. At the same time, Leica is also benefitting from an easy financial shot in the arm as thousands of folk need new and even more exotic lenses.

This is not the ecosphere where I am comfortable, but it does help companies meet their bottom line and provides another help in busines buoyancy. So while it's easy to poke fun at reclothed Panasonics and Leicas, it's all part of the business of staying afloat!

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.